Are Globalists Plotting a Counter-Revolution?

Guest Post by Patrick J. Buchanan

On meeting with the EU’s Jean-Claude Juncker last month, Donald Trump tweeted: “Both the U.S. and the E.U. drop all Tariffs, Barriers and Subsidies! That would finally be Free Market and Fair Trade.”

Did Larry Kudlow somehow get access to Trump’s phone?

We know not. But, on hearing this, Steve Forbes, Stephen Moore and Arthur Laffer broke into the “Hallelujah” chorus of Handel’s “Messiah.”

“Amen,” they thundered in The New York Times.

Trump should declare “total trade disarmament” to be national policy and make free trade his “legacy” to America. Such a proclamation, they wrote, would assure Trump the “moral high ground” in the global debate and transform him from “evil disrupter of international commerce to potential savior.”

For free trade is always and ever a “win-win for trading partners.”

To read the Times op-ed is to appreciate that what we are dealing with here is an ideology, a political religion, a creed, a cult.

For consider the fruits of free trade policy during the last 25 years: the frozen wages of U.S. workers, $12 trillion in U.S. trade deficits, 55,000 factories lost, 6 million manufacturing jobs gone, China surpassing the U.S in manufacturing, all causing a backlash that pushed a political novice to the Republican nomination and into the presidency.

To maintain a belief in the superiority of free trade to economic patriotism, in the face of such results, is to recognize that this belief system is impervious to contradictory proof.

Still, the enduring enthusiasm of free trade zealots is not the only sign that GOP globalists, having learned nothing and forgotten nothing, are looking to a post-Trump era to resurrect their repudiated dogmas.

In USA Today, Jeffrey Miron, director of economic studies at the libertarian flagship think tank Cato Institute, wrote last week:

“The solution to America’s immigrant problems is open borders. … Open borders means no walls, fences, screenings at airports, ICE … deportations, detention centers or immigration courts.”

And what would happen after we declare open borders?

“Immigrants will not flood into America. … Crime will not skyrocket. … Even if values and culture change, so what? … Who says America’s current values — some of them deeply evil — are the right ones?”

Bottom line for Cato’s Miron: If we throw open America’s borders and invite the world to come in and to remake who we are as a nation, “Think about the money we could save and make.”

This is truly economics uber alles, economy before country.

Other open borders and free trade true believers have begun speaking out. Billionaire industrialist Charles Koch, a megadonor to the GOP, has just lashed out at Trump as “divisive” and denounced the “rise in protectionism.”

Nations, organizations and individuals, said Koch, “are doing whatever they can to close themselves off from the new, hold onto the past and prevent change.”

He added, “This is a natural tendency, but it is a destructive one.”

In a pair of tweets, Trump fired back:

“The globalist Koch Brothers, who have become a total joke in real Republican circles, are against Strong Borders and Powerful Trade. I never sought their support because I don’t need their money or bad ideas. I made them richer.

“Their network is highly overrated, I have beaten them at every turn. They want to protect their companies outside the U.S. from being taxed, I’m for America First and the American Worker — a puppet for no one. Two nice guys with bad ideas. Make America Great Again!”

The billionaire Koch brothers, Charles and David, are threatening to have their network, Americans for Prosperity, withhold funding from GOP candidates who echo Trump on immigration and trade.

The open borders, free trade ideology of the Kochs, the Cato Institute, and such supply-siders as Moore, Forbes and Laffer, have deep roots in the Republican Party establishment.

Milton Friedman was of this school, as was the longtime editorial page editor of The Wall Street Journal, Bob Bartley, who for years pushed for a constitutional amendment declaring, “There shall be open borders.”

Bartley, somewhat prematurely, predicted that the nation-state was “finished” in the New World Order. Yet, today, as tribalism and nationalism are making a comeback, it looks more like the transnational “New World Order” that may be headed for the dumpster.

As long as Trump is in the White House and the party base is so viscerally behind him and his America First agenda, a renunciation of tariffs or a return to globalism is dead.

But what happens after Trump? Who and what comes next?

Republican recidivism — a return to the rejected open borders, free trade agenda of the Bush Republicans — would ignite a firestorm of protest that would tear the party of Trump apart.

Yet, while these ideas have lost Middle America, they are alive and well among the establishment elites of both parties, who have also not given up on a foreign policy of using America’s economic and military power to attempt to convert mankind to democracy.

Subscribe
Notify of
guest
5 Comments
Trumpeter
Trumpeter
August 7, 2018 8:12 am

There are NO open border Republican voters! Just globalist plutocrats (or should I call them. -oligarchs?) who buy politicians and buy votes with ad$.

Anonymous
Anonymous
August 7, 2018 10:58 am

Test

ronert h siddell jr
ronert h siddell jr
August 7, 2018 11:51 am

We have an INS for a good reason; open borders is no borders and that is inviting terrorist; that is treason; lock’em all up: Illegals and Traitors. .

pyrrhus
pyrrhus
August 7, 2018 12:58 pm

No borders, no country…just a 3d world sh*thole….As to free trade, every country that has adopted it has become much poorer, except for the uber wealthy…which is the idea, I guess, for the likes of the Koch brothers.

Rather, Not
Rather, Not
August 7, 2018 2:28 pm

I would propose a different amendment:

Any American citizen who advocates for the elimination America’s national borders should be summarily hung as a traitor.

There can be honest differences about what our border, customs, and immigration policies should be. There cannot be honest disagreement about whether the country should have a border and the associated policies.

In regards to Trade, how hard is it to understand that tariffs and non-tariff trade barriers are a nearly perfect example of iterative prisoners dilemma? Best outcome overall is both partners cooperate (no barriers). Worst overall outcome is both have high barriers. Best individual outcome is you have barriers, and the other party doesn’t, and worst individual outcome is the other party has barriers and you don’t.

The US has been in the last position iteratively since immediately after WWII. The way to get out of that position is to credibly threaten to go to the the both have high barriers. Which is a worse global outcome, but incrementally better for you, and materially worse for the other party. If that threat is credible, they drop their barriers. Just like the EU did.

Do you think the 25% tariff on autos imported from Europe Trump threatened was harsh and inappropriate? Because 25% was the EU tariff on cars imported from America into the EU. It is the reason why they export literal boatloads of cars to us, and we do not export cars to them in any appreciable quantity. Even when Ford and GM (Opel, recently sold) have a big presence in the EU market, they are virtually all made over there to avoid the tariff, not exported from US factories despite the manufacturing synergies. The EU dropped their tariffs almost immediately once Trump credibly threatened to mirror them.

Not coincidentally, the best strategy in iterative prisoners dilemma is mirroring, with an occasional good credit thrown in if they appear to be mirroring you to flip you from alternating to consistently winning together.

Which, if the EU reduces their long held tariffs on American imports to avoid application of US tariffs on their exports, is actually achieving the free trade win all those supposed free traders were opposing when Trump threatened 25%.